Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2011-04

Here we go again...

Now it's the Waray-Waray Wikipedia's turn to try and artificially climb to the top of the List of Wikipedias by churning out virtually useless one-sentence "articles". Have we learnt nothing from previous similar stunts, like the Volapük and Lombard Wikipedias?--Leptictidium 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, provide a link to the project. Ruslik 19:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

[1] Jafeluv 20:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The projects seems to be active. Ruslik 20:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is a two-men show focusing solely on boosting article count by copy-pasting tons of one-sentence microstubs. --Leptictidium 20:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Y'know, if they wanna make themselves look ridiculous, let them. Most people people know by now that article-count doesn't mean shit. Seb az86556 02:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

See List of Wikipedias by sample of articles. All the bot-o-pedias are usually found somewhere near the bottom of that list. Spamming articles won't do them any good. -- Prince Kassad 22:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Copypedias and botopedias are usually easy to recognize by the number of edits. 100,000 articles with 100,000 edits show one-man-show (or very-few-man-show). One must know how to read this list (table) [2]. "Users" and "active users" - completely misleading also. There's a project with few tens of thousands of users, which in fact, had no new users for months. Cross-wiki edits and accidental passer-bys aren't vivid community. The column "edits" shows more real position; only if certain wiki's edits are between neighbouring projects (by rank on the table) by article and edit count, then its articlecount reflects truthly vivid and numerous community (and not a editcount race or artificial keeping of a project alive with copy-paste and bot edits). Kubura 03:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Unjust Blocking in Ko. Wiki

ko:User:Libera is my Korean Wikipedia account and was checked the same IP by User:Shizhao. (Ref.) Without advance notice and debate, Korean wiki sysop Ko:User:S.BULLET. was blocked me indefinitely on March 1st. But I hadn't made other account except User:Libera314 for meta Wiki. I don't know any other multi-account users. Even my editing habits are also different to others.

I used to edit Wiki at Wi-Fi zone in the library has 30 PC. Korea has a very high population density in a small area[3] and high internet penestration rate[4]. Sharing IP in the Wi-Fi zone, we can contact Wiki and edit the documents easily. So Users using Library's IP have the same IP inevitable. Using the same IP to whatever may be edited. And I've never made a multi-account abuse of vandalism, negative vote for blocking reason. All Users hadn't made malicious edits, but blocked indefinitely... Can it be possible? It is so unfair.

For this reason, I was tried to request Korean Wiki sysop Ko:User:S.BULLET. to unblock mine in several ways. But rejected without any clear reason.

Ko. Wiki sysop Ko:User:S.BULLET. blocked Ko:User:Callitlove indefinitely also(It ranked in 'likely' section). I asked steward User:Shizhao what's the differece between 'confirmed' and 'likely'. He told me that 'confirmed' means the same IP and user agent, 'likely' means the same IP or same user agent. But if 'the same user agent' means that using the same kind of web browser, every Korean users could be ranked to 'likely'. Because almost every Korean uses the Internet Explorer 8. In Korean Wiki, 'the same user agent' would not be required condition to multi-accounts.

Where can I appeal this injustice case? My account Ko:User:Libera ended up on Wikipedia to death, and killed off innocent. Korean Wiki sysop just answered me asking on meta wiki. Please answer my plea. --Liberas 07:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, there is no appeal to make except to the arbitration comity but they usually do not touch cases like this. So unless you can get a new ip-adress and make a new account, I'm sorry to say that there is very little you can do at this point. Kingofthosewhoknow 12:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

IRC office hours notification

Would it be possible to have a notification list of users, and post a note on their talk page (on whichever project) when office hours are announced? Chzz 18:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Announcements have made on the mailing list, also many interested users keep an eye on that page regularly. But I think we can use a global message delivery bot to inform the users who are not active on meta but want to get informed. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 18:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, would find that useful. I can't keep up with the volume on the mailing lists, and don't check email as often as I should - on-wiki would be much better, IMHO. Because e.g. Sue Gardner's office hours this morning was only announced 10 hours before it happened, I think [5] - and if I hadn't stumbled on it, I'd have missed it. Cheers, Chzz 01:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually the final time announced in March 15 (here by Steven W.), I just used the the new template for formatting. It was announced 3 days ago. But also that's may not be sufficient. Using bot for message notification seems a good way to me. English Wikipedia has message delivery bot (run by EdoDodo) IIRC. We can use that one to inform participants of English Wikipedia. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 08:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I missed that.

But I do agree; it would be useful.

EdoDodo: asked. Chzz 08:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, notification on-wiki by bot is a great idea for office hours. If you don't see progress by asking EdoDodo, let me know and I'd be happy to make a broader request on behalf of the WMF. Steven Walling at work 22:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This can be done using Global message delivery (other uses). Ask the bot's owner MZMcBride or any Meta administrator to put you on the access list, set up a (opt-in) recipients list like these, and you can send notifications to subscribers on any Wikimedia project by loading a message here and then starting a bot run here. Regards, HaeB 22:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Poked Chzz 23:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: I asked the question, just "can we be told". I've been advised here to ask MZ, and did so; the response was this.

So - please advise, whatever hoops need to be jumped through; "Would it be possible to have a notification list of users, and post a note on their talk page (on whichever project) when office hours are announced? " Thanks. Chzz 00:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's the hoop. If someone makes a page for a subscriber list, in the format of the page HaeB linked to, and adds a linked mention of the subscription option to main IRC office hours page, then I will start using Global message delivery to notify people before the chats start. I bet Steven Walling and others would be willing to pitch in, too.--Ragesoss 02:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Global log-in

Why is "Log Me In Globally" enabled by default on the user login screen? Jc iindyysgvxc 08:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Ruslik 09:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, 1) users might not want to log in globally, and 2) most newbies do not understand what it means. Jc iindyysgvxc 10:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

First, I guess 99 % of the users want to log in globally, you can deactive it if you don't want to; secondly, if somebody doesn't know what it is - so nothing happens, if he does it anyway. It is OK so. -jkb- 10:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

What does "Log Me In Globally" actually do?

See this page: SUL. Logging in globally or "Unified login" is a mechanism which allows users to use a single login across the majority of the Wikimedia Foundation's projects. So, if you log in on the English Wikipedia then you will be logged in on the german wikipedia, wikimedia commons etc. It saves having to log in individually. Woody 17:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I log in the English Wikipedia but I cannot be automatically logged in on the chinese wikipedia. Then I check my http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MergeAccount, and found that the zh.wikipedia.org have not been automatically attached to my unified account. Why? Can Anyone here show me how to include zh.wikipedia.org im my unified account? Thanks.Freechina2011 04:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Visit zh.wikipedia.org and log in there and it should be attached. --WizardOfOz ^talk 05:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to log in zh.wikipedia but it takes me to this page:

http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:%E7%94%A8%E6%88%B7%E7%99%BB%E5%BD%95&returnto=Wikipedia:%E7%A4%BE%E5%8C%BA%E4%B8%BB%E9%A1%B5Freechina2011 03:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I log out here and then log in zh.wikipedia.org. After manage my global account there, I can now automatically log in zh.wikipedia from here. Good, but I am still thinking about why users cannot include zh.wikipedia.org by managing their global account here or any other language wiki website. Is this one of the ways that china control the internet?Freechina2011 03:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I can log into the zhwiki same as I can any other WMF project, but I already had an account there under my name. (see SUL) It should be noted that although zhwiki is in Chinese, the servers are in the United States, just like all the other projects of the Foundation, including Meta. Courcelles 04:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I don´t know why this don´t work on zhwiki, but usualy, if you are logged in on one wiki with your SUL account and than visit another wiki, account should be automaticaly created there and attached to your SUL. --WizardOfOz ^talk 05:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Drew Bedford

hi.

Hello. Is there anything we can help you with? Courcelles 03:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Conference in kenya.

The kenyan chapter of Wikipedia held a conference to celebrate the 10 anniversary of wikipedia foundation. It was held at Strathmore University in Nairobi Kenya. The chief Guest was Mr. Ting Chen the chairman of Board of Trustees. It was a very successful meeting bringing together students from various universities across Kenya. I must say I learnt a lot from the conference and was so inspired by the speech given by the chief Guest. Look forward to more of such interactive conferences. LONG LIVE WIKIPEDIA AND HAPPY BIRTHDAY

Lovely :) –SJ · talk | translate

14:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

What to do with ten.wikipedia.org in the long run

Hi everyone, just alerting those potentially interested in the tenwiki Village Pump discussion about what to do with ten.wikipedia.org (the 10th anniversary organizing wiki) after all the events are finished for the year. One possibility that has been proposed before is merging with Meta, so it was suggested we should let Meta folks know too. Your input would be most welcome. Thanks! Steven Walling at work 22:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Instead of starting ten.wikipedia.org, it was better idea (it still is) to create a Anniversaries portal/section or similar on Meta.
With such a portal/section on Meta, all interested users don't have to go on another site (and memorize the address), to register there, but simply to go here on Meta. Kubura 05:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually users did not have to register separately at all on ten.wikipedia.org. It was under the single user login system just like other Wikimedia projects. Steven Walling at work 02:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I know that, but that scheme doesn't work for all users :))) . Anyway, what do you think about "Portal:Wikianniversaries"? Kubura 00:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the importing to meta idea. WereSpielChequers 22:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Further restrictions on article creation at en.wp proposed

Note: I've collapsed this section, as I've been informed that I'm in violation of w:WP:CANVAS which states that if I comment elsewhere, it should be presented in a non partisan, netural manner, which I've clearly not done. I will start again below with the proper form. BarkingFish 11:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems that, not only have en.wp nailed the rights of IPs to create articles (without assistance), we're now trying to stop people with accounts from doing so unless they have been with us for at least 54 days, and edited 10 times. I'm talking about a proposal currently on the Village pump at en.wikipedia which is aimed at preventing any user without the autoconfirmed status from creating articles directly, without using the Articles for Creation process, or our article wizard. I am not impressed by this idea, and feel that this subject needs throwing open to the wider Wikimedia community. In my opinion certainly, this is a very bad idea. I feel it will cause a loss of editors to the project, when they discover that they've joined expecting to write something and publish it, only to discover they can't, and they have effectively got to have it "vetted", and that as a community needing to encourage editors to join and stay, putting further restrictions on how they operate is counterproductive. There is a potential that it could lead to people having others edit for them, which, whilst wrong, stands a real possibility of occurring, and ultimately, this proposal will damage the open and free nature of Wikipedia, and its reputation as the encyclopedia "anyone can edit". Look at it from a users perspective. They try to write an article as an IP, and find they can't (without help). So they make an account. They try to write an article from that account, and find they have to wait nearly a week half the week before they are able to do so (at least without help). I don't know about you, but my first thought would be "forget it. If they don't want my contribution, that's their loss. Not mine." Ultimately, I believe this goes against one of our Founding principles, "The ability of almost anyone to edit (most) articles without registration" - Creating an article is simply editing one that isn't there yet. I thank you for your time, and any comments you wish to make to me regarding my statement are most welcome. BarkingFish 03:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC) At this point in time the progress has plateaued and you can't really improve articles because they are guarded by whoever won the previous editing wars, so at this point the winners are simply happy with keeping the articles as they are. There is no need to do anything else, the war is already over. So as long as they can keep the newcomers in check, they have nothing fear. Kingofthosewhoknow 12:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Creating content forks is not the correct solution to article ownership. WhatamIdoing 17:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC) "They try to write an article as an IP, and find they can't. So they make an account. They try to write an article from that account, and find they have to wait nearly a week before they are able to do so." Untrue on multiple counts. You can create an article as an IP, using the Articles for Creation assistance system. If the proposal is implemented, non-auto-confirmed users will be able to create articles the same way, and will also have other options to create articles with assistance (see particularly my View at the RFC). Rd232 14:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Maybe I should clarify what I said, as I have done elsewhere. IPs cannot create an article without assistance from Wikipedia's AFC process, which is broken. There is often a backlog at this area. Adding non autoconfirmed users to the process will serve to increase this backlog, We shouldn't be restricting people to writing in certain ways and by specific methods, we should be encouraging them to write. And it still goes against the Founding principle of being able to edit "without registration", since autoconfirmed status requires that you register. BarkingFish 16:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Autoconfirmation requires (both) ten edits and four days (96 hours), not five. One of the proposals would permit new accounts to create pages in userspace, where the person could create an article and later move it to the main namespace. So under that scenario, we're talking about a user being about to create User:Example/My new garage band, but not My new garage band on the very first edit. This does not sound like a dramatic restriction in editing ability. Another (quite popular) proposal is that new accounts could be forced to use the Article Wizard to create articles. In this proposal, on the very first edit, the user could create My new garage band. The only change we'd be making is requiring the new user to click past a couple of pages that explain why an article about the band that he and his buddy decided to start last night doesn't meet the English Wikipedia's standards. Again, this does not sound like the sort of draconian restriction that is worthy of so much hand-wringing. I'm also not convinced that Meta is the right place to be discussing choices that affect a single project. To be candid, my first reaction is that you're forum-shopping because you know that the community disagrees with you. The English Wikipedia has three and a half million articles. There are very few obvious articles left to create (unless you think it terribly important that each mass market novel by your favorite author and each new character on your favorite television show have its own page). "Slow down and figure out how this thing works and what articles already exist" is not an unreasonable thing for us to be saying to new people, particularly when we get so many complaints about punishing new editors for not magically knowing how Wikipedia works and what articles already exist. WhatamIdoing 17:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Whilst I strongly deny the allegation that I am "forum shopping", I can understand why you might say that. This is a very big proposal which is going to do some damage to Wikipedia, in particular I feel it will kill editor retention, since most who find restrictions in place are probably not gonna hang around. The reason I posted this here was that since this is the coordination hub for Wiki(m/p)edia projects, I felt that it would be a good idea to let them know of a significant change and one which as I say, could breach at least one of the Founding princples, which are essentially the footings we were built on. In that respect and in others, I felt it right and proper to open the discussion to the wider meta and WMF community. I don't see anything wrong in that. However, based on the information here from yourself and Rd232, i have reworded my opening statement. BarkingFish 22:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Way to canvass that proposal... Considering that this is not enwp, nor does the outcome of that proposal affect the whole of Wikimedia, I'd say that there is no reason to further the discussion here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at en.wikipedia regarding article creation rights.

Would editors please note that a discussion regarding editing rights on the English Wikipedia is underway. Please see the details at the Village pump. Thank you. BarkingFish 11:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, good thing that you wrote that here.
Many articles are translated from en.wiki, so if the particular editors are censored (because they are not "autoconfirmed"), than whole Wikipedian project is affected.
Who gives the status of "autoconfirmed"? Who opstructs someone's advance to that status?
Where is "be bold"? Kubura 02:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You get en:WP:AUTOCONFIRMED status automatically, by both (1) making ten edits to any page and (2) having an account that is more than four days (96 hours) old. It is not possible to obstruct a user's advance to that status, except by both blocking the account and disabling access to the user's own talk page, so that the user is unable to make any edits whatsoever to any page. It is also not possible to remove this status from a user once it has been achieved. WhatamIdoing 06:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Besides, if you're only concerned about translating from en, it won't effect you. Anyone can read en.wikipedia. Seb az86556 06:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Press release of copyright violation of Baidu Baike and letter to Baidu

You are invited to sign the letter on zh:WP:VPM#聯署至百度信件、新聞稿 if you are related. Baidu Baike copy content from Chinese, English and Japanese Wikipedia without attribution and using the same license. A press release is prepared by the Chinese Wikipedia community and English version is available. A letter to Baidu company is also prepared and is asking people to sign it. These two materials will be send out this week or as soon as possible. Thank you for your attention. Related discussion can be found at foundation-l. --Waihorace 14:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Survey always pops up after I did it

Can you add a "never show again" to the "Editor Survey" banner? I already did it and it's getting annoying. Thanks, SEPTActaMTA8235 21:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that I've not seen it again on the project I filled it out from (English WP), but have been seeing it on other projects. (Now back to the original topic) The banner is set to not be displayed by a cookie, so if you're using different computers, not accepting cookies, or something similar, the banner is going to come back. Courcelles 23:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Survey errors

Not sure if this is the right place or if anyone here can do anything about it, but the 2011 Editor Survey has at least one typo in it: "I saw a red link or noticed an articles was missing, so I wrote it." You can't have "an articles" ... ←fetchcomms 22:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You could use the editor survey feedback page at the Wikimedia Strategy wiki. Gestumblindi 19:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)